How about Wikimedia?
I will get downvoted for this, but it's my perception.
--
[0]: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/wikipedia-millions-bank-beg/
I will always downvote a comment when someone writes something like this. It is irrelevant to the conversation and screams insecurity.
Though, hoarding seems like a mischaracterization. Per the article linked, the cash burn rate is on the order of $100M/yr, having $150M in the bank is 18 months worth of funding.
The biggest gripe I read in the article is the "high" expenditure rate and how necessary it is. It seems like reasonable people may disagree on whether that spend rate is excessive.
If the expenditure rate were lower, I'd agree it would be hoarding.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has...
If they kept expenditures low and hoarded, I would actually be fine with that and happy to contribute. I see nothing wrong with forming a large endowment for a project like Wikipedia.
I believe I was likely incorrect and you are correct here @HillRat. The nuance where I was incorrect was if the nonprofit fails to properly pay taxes on unrelated activities - in which case the government can decide that entity is a for-profit entity. This link was helpful for me for that clarification: https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/incorporation-and-lega...
I recall this being an issue for an HOA which wound up collecting more than it needed and there was concern that (A) it would be taxed & (B) nonprofit status would be lost. Paying taxes correctly is very important, but does not speak to a non-profits ability to hoard cash. My earlier comment is incorrect, I apologize for the bad information.
The what? I cannot visit Wikipedia without seeing a donate bar, even when I close it every time. "Year-round" maybe.
Their sister Wikicities / Wikia / Fandom (also relying on MediaWiki), and now owned by Texas Pacific Group, is however, another example of a platform getting enshittified.